Airline radiation vs Fukushima ingestion
This has been a subject of great consternation, and as a former Biochem student I can not for the life of me figure out the rationale BRAWM and everyone else seems to be using. One of the earlier posts I saw from BRAWM Mark even made the case that you are no longer being radiated once you step off the plane.
Without spending billions of tax payer dollars, I can pretty much tell you this is a completely invalid and absurd comparison, considering bio-accumulation. We're talking 3 hours compared to 70+ years dudes, get a clue! Or come up with something better than taking your word for it at least!
OR, you can leave the health analysis to people who know wtf they are talking about and just report the data! Imagine that?
We the people need to stand
We the people need to stand up and refuse to accept these comparisons. We have the power here.For example,in Europe the people stood up and demanded the artificial colorings were removed from their children's food. Guess what, it was.
"Throughout Europe, several countries have banned artificial dyes and require foods using any still-approved unnatural colors to prominently display warning labels on packaging. Those labels are required to state that consuming foods containing artificial colors might be linked to behavioral issues in children. American companies including Kellogg’s, Kraft and McDonald’s, have stopped using artificial dyes abroad while they continue to sell foods with the questionable ingredients to the U.S. market in lieu of their obvious capabilities to use natural alternatives."
http://www.organicauthority.com/blog/organic/banned-in-europe-food-color...
http://www.fooducate.com/blog/2010/12/02/nutri-grain-fake-color-and-why-...
Death by a single big long lasting cut or by a thousand cuts
If you really think about it, the comparison make sense. They are talking about dosage conversions and the associated risk.
Two examples:
1. If you are exposed to one particle of significant radiation lodged in your body, it poses a specific risk to the cells immediately around it. The risk is limited to that area (a particle in your lung is not irradiating your intestines). That risk can be calculated.
2. If you expose your entire body to an increase in radiation, as with an airline flight, you have now spread that risk to just about every cell in your body, but only for the duration of the flight. That risk can be calculated also.
Whatever the single particle lacks in quantity and distribution, it makes up for in duration of exposure.
Whatever radiation from an airline flight lacks in duration of exposure, it makes up for in quantity and distribution (number of cells irradiated).
The BRAWM team has explained how they have taken the above into consideration and provided an equivalency model.
If you haven't already, I suggest you read the following information provided by the BRAWM team. It's much cheaper than billions of tax payer dollars :-)
FAQ on Total Effective Dose Equivalent:
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/2044#tede
FAQ on comparing dose from airplane flights to other dose:
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/2044#dosecompare
If you still don't agree with the above, I recommend that this debate be dropped (there seems to be no end to it). And start looking at the BRAWM team's (Mark') apples to apples (ingestion) comparisons given in the following thread:
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/4351#comment-9405
I think this comparison is
I think this comparison is misleading and confuses people who have little knowledge in radiation exposure. Please stop using this as a comparison for it is creating questions than answers.
I agree with you
Which is why I pointed at the other "ingestion" comparison.
"Whatever the single
"Whatever the single particle lacks in quantity and distribution, it makes up for in duration of exposure."
Actually the quantity and distribution (ie measurement) in each case is the same. That is why they are being compared you moron. lol
You obviously haven't read the FAQs
I suggest you read the FAQs before commenting further.
The quantity and distribution are NOT the same. That is not possible between the two different exposure types. Which is why they have to come up with equivalencies.
"What is total effective dose equivalent (TEDE)?
Total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) is a measure of the biological effects due to radiation exposure. TEDE accounts for the amount of energy deposited by the radiation, the type of radiation (alpha, beta, or gamma), the type of tissue exposed, and the part of the body exposed. It also accounts for the manner of exposure (inhaled, ingested, or external), the rate of uptake of the specific isotope, the biological and radiological half-life of the isotope, and the total energy deposition in the body over the entire time it is present"
How many airplane flights
How many airplane flights would it take to get ARS, oh great debunker?
How about to iodine and cesium to the water on the plane?
How many flights?
*to add particles of iodine
*to add particles of iodine and cesium*
Has anyone ever heard of an
Has anyone ever heard of an airline pilot getting radiation sickness? What is the equivalent of flight hours of radiation for the girl with the blood fountain for a nose? I'm guessing that's just a flight from LA to SF. This site is a joke.....
When did BRAWM compare airline flights with high exposure?
You lost me on that one, Anonymous. When did BRAWM compare airline flights with high exposure? The BRAWM team is using flight hours to compare with the very low doses they are measuring. You are talking like the BRAWM team has said that any exposure level can be compared to a flight. They have said nothing of the sort.
One could also ask how many hours in the sun could cause a "blood fountain for a nose"? The answer is that it can't. The radiation level is too low. But, prolonged exposure can cause cancer.
Flight crew hours are limited to reduce their exposure and risk of cancer. Will too many flight hours give you a "blood fountain for a nose"? No. But, it can apparently cause cancer. It is this dosage and risk the BRAWM team is comparing to.
In Flight health- Cabin Radiation:
http://aviationknowledge.wikidot.com/aviation:in-flight-health-cabin-rad...
Since the radiation here is
Since the radiation here is barely a magnitude lower than Japan, if that, that IS basically what they are saying.
But no tests for alpha.
But no tests for alpha.
What data shows that?
What data shows the radiation anywhere in the US is barely a mganitude lower than Japan? And what area in Japan?
The rational is, it makes it
The rational is, it makes it seem a lot more minor than it is.
Correct, it's clearly not
Correct, it's clearly not the same exposure, yet they are hell bent on continuing the comparison. No conspiracies here...
I bet I could find funding for a BRAWM team member to swallow 200,000 metric tons of sand to study once and for all if this is really true
I would like to see them add
I would like to see them add these levels to water them drink it. Or perhaps share it with a pregnant friend or family member.
*then* not them
*then* not them